K.B.MULLA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA,1976

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Accused was a Sub-Inspector of Police in Hospet which was a rural police station.P.W.11 is an agriculturist by profession who used to live near a village that comes under the jurisdiction of Hospet Police Station.
2.  In 1972 the accused P.W.11 met near the railway station and gave him a ticket of rs.50 in credit as P.W.11 had no money at that time. On 29th October there was a wrestling match, during that match, the accused met P.W.11 and asked him to come to the police station. P.W.11 went to the police station and gave him a Rs100 rupee denomination. The accused asked P.W.11 to meet him the next day to recover the change balance. 
3. On 30th October 1972, P.W.11 went to the Police Station and at that time four persons viz, Pampapathi, Mahaboob Sab, Imam Sab, and Nagabhushana were present and they told that P.W.11 was involved in the case of cheating of Ananthasayana Gudi. The P.W.11 stated that he was not involved in any cheating case and asked the Police to inquire about it. 
4. The Accused said that the four persons above mentioned are detained and if they agree to pay Rs 2000 each then the accused will release them. He wanted P.W.11 to be a witness and later arrange for the money otherwise P.W.11 would be liable under the cheating case. They promised to pay the amount for their release. 
5. On 31st October 1972, he was asked by the accused to meet and take the promissory notes. P.W.11 collected Rs 2000 from different sources and for the leftover amount he was called to the Police Station. Then the accused arrested him fraudulently for the offence of cheating one of his relations from IIkal and obtained Rs 10000. 
6. He contended that he obtained only Rs 5000 out of Rs10000 and denied the allegation. He was constantly threatened by the accused that either he pay Rs5000 or be detained.it is alleged that in the evening P.W.11 was assaulted by the accused inside the police station. He was forced to pay the amount and on 5th January 1973, he paid the money and was allowed to go. 
7. On 31st December 1972, P.W.11 told everything to Mr. Virupakshappa about the whole harassment and asked for some assistance. Mr. Veerupakshappa prepares an affidavit. He gave P.W.11 some papers and asked him to hand it over to the Dharam Rao Afzalpurkar and he would contact it to the Deputy Inspector General. On a certain night, the accused was caught red-handed bribing the accused. Then a case was filed against the accused under Section 161 of IPC and section 5(1)(d) and [c] of Act.
8. FIR was prepared and sent to the court and all the investigation took place. On 5th January,1973 the accused was arrested and was also released on bail. On 23rd January,1974 the charge sheet was filed against the accused to the court of special Judge at Bellary. 
9. In that trial, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried further. After that 13 witnesses were recorded and the accused was also recorded and no defence witness was examined. 
10. The accused stated that all the witnesses were false and he even denied that he received any currency as a bribe, he further denied all the evidence and stated that some transaction regarding the sale of the motorcycle was contracted between him and P.W.11 and P.W.11 agreed to pay rs.500 as an advance amount and if the government doesn’t allow such transaction then he might return the amount to P.W.11. He further stated that P.W.11 has conspired against him and filed a false complaint, he stated that he is innocent and he has committed no offence. 
11. The Special Judge held that the accused was guilty of criminal misconduct and therefore convicted and sentenced him.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the Judgment passed by the Special Judge at Bellary for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 161 of the IPC and sentencing him for two years rigorous imprisonment and charging a fine of Rs 1000 is justified or not?

ARGUMENTS 

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

From the petitioner’s side, there was Mr. A.Shamanna appeared on behalf of the Accused and he stated the following points:

1. Permission granted by the First Class Magistrate was not a speaking order and hence that cannot be a valid basis for granting permission under section 5-A of the Act. he has relied on the case of State of Madhya Pradesh V. Mubarak Ali
2. He further contended that there has been no sanction done at all as per requirement under section 6 of the Act. According to him, it is only a communication sanction and that does not state any sanction for the prosecution of the Accused.
3. He also stated that the evidence given in connection with the acceptance of a bribe of Rs8000 by the accused is irrelevant and inadmissible and thus the Special Judge’s decision is in error as it considered all that evidence.
4. The learned advocate also stated that the evidence of Ilkal was brought afterward and was not included in the charges framed earlier against the accused and thus his allegations should not be considered.
5. Lastly, he stated that the prosecution has failed to frame any charge against the accused.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT

Government Pleader on behalf of the state has stated the following points:

1. They contended that the permission and sanction by the First Class Magistrate and the Government were not bad in law all the evidence and allegations were true and there was enough proof that the accused had threatened P.W.11 to be involved in a chatting case
2. He further urged that the defect in the permission granted by First Class Magistrate in the case is curable and it would not vitiate any trial and rely on the Supreme Court case of Khandu Sonu Dhobi V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 958.
3. He contended that Ex.P. 13 which refers to the Records and CID file which is attached already shows that the sanctioning authority had the entire records and proper evidence to rely upon but that was just a letter for communicating the sanction and it cannot be stated as the order of sanction.
4. Lastly, he contended that the prosecution has produced enough evidence to show that the accused had accepted five signed hundred rupee currency from P.W.11 and thus he is liable under section 5(1)(d) of the Act.

JUDGMENT

In the Judgment, the Court held that: 

1. The sanction order was invalid as it was just a sanction for communication and not a sanction for an order to prosecute the accused or a proof of fact that the sanction was granted.
2. Now considering the merits of the case it is necessary to examine whether the accused was involved in any bribing or not and it is fairly proved from the evidence that the accused was involved in misconduct for an offence under section 5(1)(d) of the Act read with section 161 of IPC as stated by the Special Judge Bellary and this order was given on the basis of Ilkal’s allegation.
3. The court held that the accused cannot be charged and punished for the Ilkal case as it was brought afterward in between the trial and the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused at any stage had demanded any illegal gratification to show favor to P.W.11 by not involving him in crime.
4. Even if we consider that the accused received Rs.500 as a bribe from P.W.11 on a presumption under section 4 but no offence can be raised under section 5(1)(d) of the Act. The Special Judge has been carried away by the evidence given and thus the charges against the accused are not sustainable under section 5(1)(d) of the Act.

The High Court has allowed the appeal and the conviction and sentence against the accused delivered by the Special Judge at Bellary has been set aside and the accused has been acquitted and any bail bond against him stands discharged.

This Article is written by Jayanti Roy of Department of Law, Calcutta University, intern at Legal Vidhiya.

REFERENCE

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/976584/

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin